Inequalities in reported use of breast and cervical screening in Great Britain: analysis of cross sectional survey data
Inequalities in reported use of breast and cervical screening in Great Britain: analysis of cross sectional survey data
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.b2025
复制
发表时间：
2009-06-16
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Beral, Valerie
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Moser, Kath;Patnick, Julietta;Beral, Valerie
目的调查妇女报告的乳腺癌和宫颈癌筛查的使用与社会人口学特征之间的关系。设计横断面多用途调查。设置私人家庭，英国。人口3185名年龄40 - 74岁的妇女在国家统计综合调查2005 - 7中接受了采访。主要结果测量是否进行过乳房X线检查，是否进行过宫颈涂片检查，最新屏幕的时间。结果91%（95%可信区间90%至92%）的40 - 74岁女性报告曾接受子宫颈细胞检验，53 - 74岁的妇女中有3%（92%至94%）的人报告曾经做过乳房X光检查; 53 - 74岁的妇女中有3%（2%至4%）的人从未做过乳房或宫颈筛查。如果女性生活在有汽车的家庭中，她们做乳房X光检查的可能性要大得多（与无车相比：一辆车，优势比1.67，95%置信区间1.06至2.62;两辆或更多汽车，优势比2.65，1.34至5.26），（与租房相比：自有带按揭，比值比2.12，1.12比4.00;直接拥有，比值比2.19，1.39至3.43），但没有发现种族，教育，职业或地区的显著差异。种族是最重要的预测因素;白色英国妇女比其他种族妇女更有可能进行宫颈涂片检查（优势比2.20，1.41至3.42）。子宫颈筛查的摄取量更大的受教育程度的妇女，但没有显着相关的汽车，住房保有权，或region.Conclusions大多数（84%）符合条件的妇女报告有乳腺癌和子宫颈筛查，但3%的报告从来没有。在报告的筛查使用情况中存在一些不平等，因筛查类型而异;财富指标对乳腺筛查很重要，种族指标对宫颈筛查很重要。在一般实践中例行收集额外的社会人口信息将有助于监测筛查覆盖率的不平等，并为纠正这些不平等的政策提供信息。
Objective To investigate the relation between women's reported use of breast and cervical screening and sociodemographic characteristics.Design Cross sectional multipurpose survey.Setting Private households, Great Britain.Population 3185 women aged 40-74 interviewed in the National Statistics Omnibus Survey 2005-7.Main outcome measures Ever had a mammogram, ever had a cervical smear, and, for each, timing of most recent screen.Results 91% (95% confidence interval 90% to 92%) of women aged 40-74 years reported ever having had a cervical smear, and 93% (92% to 94%) of those aged 53-74 years reported ever having had a mammogram; 3% (2% to 4%) of women aged 53-74 years had never had either breast or cervical screening. Women were significantly more likely to have had a mammogram if they lived in households with cars (compared with no car: one car, odds ratio 1.67, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 2.62; two or more cars, odds ratio 2.65, 1.34 to 5.26), and in owner occupied housing (compared with rented housing: own with mortgage, odds ratio 2.12, 1.12 to 4.00; own outright, odds ratio 2.19, 1.39 to 3.43), but no significant differences by ethnicity, education, occupation, or region were found. For cervical screening, ethnicity was the most important predictor; white British women were significantly more likely to have had a cervical smear than were women of other ethnicity (odds ratio 2.20, 1.41 to 3.42). Uptake of cervical screening was greater among more educated women but was not significantly associated with cars, housing tenure, or region.Conclusions Most (84%) eligible women report having had both breast and cervical screening, but 3% report never having had either. Some inequalities exist in the reported use of screening, which differ by screening type; indicators of wealth were important for breast screening and ethnicity for cervical screening. The routine collection within general practice of additional sociodemographic information would aid monitoring of inequalities in screening coverage and inform policies to correct them.